|
MALTREATMENT INVESTIGATION MEMORANDUM Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.01, paragraph (a), “The legislature hereby declares that the public policy of this state is to protect children whose health or welfare may be jeopardized through maltreatment.” On June 18, 2025, most of the children and family work, including investigations of maltreatment at childcare centers, at the MN Department of Human Services (DHS) Office of Inspector General transferred to the new Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF), as directed by state law. While this investigation began under DHS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 15.039, subdivision 2, this Investigation Memorandum is being issued by DCYF pursuant to that transfer.
License Number and Program Type: 802580-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Danielle Morrison 651-539-8252 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) forced an alleged victim’s (AV’s) head down on a cot at naptime causing a bruise. Date of Incident(s): November 15, 2024, the Department of Human Services was not notified until February 18, 2025. Nature of Alleged Maltreatment Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.03, subdivision 15, paragraph (a), clauses (1) and (2); subdivision 18, paragraph (a); and subdivision 23, paragraph (a): Failure by a person responsible for a child's care to supply a child with necessary food, clothing, shelter, health, medical, or other care required for the child's physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so. Failure to protect a child from conditions or actions that seriously endanger the child's physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so. "Physical abuse" means any physical injury, mental injury, or threatened injury, inflicted by a person responsible for the child's care on a child other than by accidental means. "Threatened injury" means a statement, overt act, condition, or status that represents a substantial risk of physical or sexual abuse or mental injury. Summary of Findings: Pertinent information was obtained during a site visit conducted on March 6, 2025; from documentation at the facility; and through six interviews conducted with two supervisory staff persons (P1 and P2), three facility staff persons (the SP, P3, and P4), and the AV’s family member (FM). The AV was two years old and enrolled in the Toddler Two classroom at the time of the incident. The facility had nine classrooms for infant through preschool aged children. During nap time the Toddler Two classroom had cots laid out on the floor. The cots were a few inches off the floor and had metal frames with blue mesh that wrapped around the frame. The facility’s Bright Wheel app (an application used to communicate with families) showed an entry for the AV on November 15, 2024, at 3:49 p.m., stating “Incident coming real soon” with a photo of the AV with a red and purple mark in the center of the AV’s forehead starting between his/her eyebrows and continuing above the AV’s right eyebrow. There were also red dots in the middle part of the mark. The AV’s naptime was marked as 12:38 p.m. start time until 2:49 p.m. end time. The facility was unable to produce an Injury/Incident Report upon request. However, the facility’s Injury/Incident Log, the SP documented the following regarding an incident on November 15, 2024, at 12:40 p.m.: [The AV] was told to go lay on his/her cot and wasn’t listening. [The AV] was running around the classroom with [his/her] friends. [The SP] went to grab to get [the AV] down on [his/her] cot, but then [the AV] got up and [the SP] went to put [the AV] down on [his/her] cot and [the AV] ran away again. [The SP] got frustrated and grabbed and put [the AV] down hard and [the AV] hit [his/her] head on the cot handle hard and got bruised. . . [The AV] cried for little bit. [The SP] hugged [the AV] and I’m sorry, went to get ice pack for [his/her] forehead bruise [during nap and after snack] to get swelling down. The FM said that sometime in December 2024, there was an incident where s/he received a message from the SP that that the AV was not cooperating at nap time. The AV sat up, and the SP put his/her hand on the AV’s back to lay the AV back down and the AV hit his/her head on the cot leaving a red mark. The SP consoled the AV, and the AV took a nap like normal. When the FM picked up that afternoon, the AV was in “good spirits.” The SP walked through again with the FM what happened. The FM said the SP was one of their “favorite” staff persons and the FM had “zero concerns.” The FM did not notice any mark on the AV at pick up nor anything in the week after the incident. The SP provided the following information: · On an unknown Friday in 2024 (note: November 15, 2024, was a Friday), the SP was working in the Toddler Two classroom with P3 because P4 was not at the facility the entire day. Around 12:40 p.m., the SP and P3 were getting children settled onto cots for naptime. The AV was running around the classroom. · The SP was “frustrated” that the AV was running around. The SP grabbed the AV underneath his/her arms on the torso and bent down to lay the AV on his/her cot. The SP “pushed” the AV on the cot and described the action as “forceful.” The AV hit his/her head on the edge of the cot. · The AV cried and called for the FM. There was a red and purple lump in the middle of the AV’s forehead that was about the size of a quarter. P3 was getting two other children to sleep, and the SP stated that P3 did not respond when the AV started crying. The SP hugged the AV, got the AV an ice pack, and told P1 what happened. P1 called the FM to tell the FM what happened. · When the AV returned the following Monday, the FM had the AV apologize to the SP for running around and not listening. The SP apologized to the FM. The AV’s bruise lasted a week. · The SP was trained that if children were not listening, s/he should ask another staff person for help or think of something else for the child to do. The SP said during the incident, s/he should have asked P3 for help with the AV. P1 provided the following information: · On an unknown date in December 2024, the SP told P1 that the AV kept “popping” his/her head up while laying on the cot and the SP “pushed” the AV back down “too hard” and the AV hit his/her head. · P1 went into the Toddler Two classroom and the SP had already gotten the AV an ice pack. The room was dark due to nap time, but P1 did not see any marks. P1 called the FM and told the FM what happened, and spoke with the FM again at pick up. P1 thought that if the AV had a mark, P1 would have written up an incident report. · P1 said the SP was “beside [him/herself]” and kept apologizing. P1 told the SP that if s/he was frustrated, s/he should ask another staff person to step in. P1 had no prior concerns with the SP. · P1 spoke with P3 about what happened, and P3 told P1 that s/he did not notice anything at the time. P3 spoke with P1 at a later date about the SP being “frustrated not that long ago.” · P1 said staff persons were trained to try to get children to sleep, but not force them. If a child was having a hard time with one staff person, the staff person should try to have the other staff person switch spots. Children were to lay down for 30 minutes, but then could read books or play quietly at the desks. P3 provided the following information: · On an unknown date, P3 was working in the toddler classroom with the SP. During nap time P3 heard the SP telling the AV to lay down. The SP seemed “frustrated” by his/her tone of voice. P3 did not see what happened but heard the AV cry so P3 turned around and asked the SP what happened. The SP said the AV hit his/her head on the cot accidentally. · P3 said the AV had a red mark on his/her forehead bigger than a quarter. P3 was not sure how long the mark lasted. P3 was not sure if any first aid was given to the AV, but stated the SP “immediately” went out and told a supervisor what had happened. · P3 stated that something was noted in Bright Wheel for the AV, but P3 did not know what the incident report stated. P2 provided the following information: · P2 was not at the facility on the day of the incident but was notified by P1 what had happened and the steps P1 had taken. P2 was told that when the SP went to set the AV on his/her cot, the AV hit his/her head. P1 told P2 that s/he did not see any visible marks. · When P2 returned to the facility, P1 again told P2 that there were no marks, that the FM “trusted” the SP, and that the AV was “happy to be [at the facility].” The SP told P2 that the AV had a difficult time settling down on the cot so s/he laid the AV down, and the AV hit his/her forehead on the corner of the cot. The AV was upset. The SP told P2 that s/he comforted the AV, then the AV calmed down and went to sleep and the SP told P1 what happened. · Staff persons were trained to sit next to children and use words to redirect the children by telling them if what they are doing was unsafe. If a staff person had to pick up a child, they were to use two hands to support the child and be as gentle as possible. P2 had no prior concerns with the SP. P4 provided the following information: · P4 had no concerns with how the SP treated children. If children were not listening to the SP, P4 stepped in and if children were not listening to P4, the SP stepped in. If the SP was getting “frustrated” P4 heard a change in his/her voice and that was when P4 stepped in. · P4 said family members and children thought highly of the SP. · P4 did not recall a time that s/he was not working at the facility and when s/he came back a child had a mark or bruise. · P4 was trained to sit by children during nap time and rub their backs. “Most” of the children laid down for the SP. If a child was not listening, staff persons were trained to redirect the behavior by telling children that what they are doing was not safe. The facility’s Staff Policies and Employee Handbook section on Behavior Guidance, stated, “Children should be encouraged to make choices in their behavior and [staff persons] promote positive ways of dealing with unacceptable behaviors.” “[The facility] prohibits the following actions by or under the directions of a staff person: rough handling, shoving, hair pulling, ear pulling, shaking, slapping, kicking, biting, pinching, hitting, spanking, withholding food or beverage, and physical restraint.” Facility documentation showed that the SP, P1, P2, P3, and P4 each received training on the facility’s Behavior Guidance Policy and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. A text message from P1 to another supervisory staff person from November 15, 2024, at 1:55 p.m. stated, “[The SP] told [P1] that [the SP] was extremely frustrated at nap and laid [the AV] down too hard and [the AV] hit the top bar on [his/her] cot.” Relevant Rules and/or Statutes:
Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0055, subpart 3, item A, prohibits the use of corporal punishment including but not limited to in part, rough handling, shoving, kicking, hitting, and spanking.
Conclusion: A. Maltreatment: Information from the SP, P3, and documentation was consistent that on the date of the incident, the SP and P3 were working in the Toddler Two classroom with the AV. The AV was having a hard time laying down for nap. The SP stated that s/he “pushed” the AV on the cot in a “forceful” manner and the AV hit his/her head on the cot, and documented that s/he “put” the AV down “hard” and the AV hit his/her head on the cot handle “hard.” Information from the SP, P3, and a photograph taken of the AV on November 15, 2024, was consistent that there was a red mark on the AV’s forehead after the incident. The SP said it was about the size of a quarter and lasted a week. P3 said it was bigger than a quarter but did not know how long it lasted. The SP got an ice pack to apply to the AV’s forehead and told P1 what happened. P1 checked on the AV and did not remember seeing a mark. P1 called the FM and spoke with him/her about what happened. When the FM picked up, s/he did not notice a mark on the AV and stated that no mark or bruise appeared in the week after the incident. The FM, P1, P2, and P4 had no prior concerns with the SP. P1 and the FM each said the incident occurred in December 2024, and that the AV did not sustain an injury. However, given that the SP documented the incident (including a bruise) on November 15, 2024; that there was a photograph of the AV’s injury dated November 15, 2024; and that there was a November 15, 2024, text message from P1 to another supervisory staff person that described the incident; the SP’s and P3’s accounts of the incident were considered more credible than P1’s and the FM’s accounts. The SP stated that s/he was “frustrated” and laid the AV down in a “forceful” manner, which was a violation of the facility’s policies and procedures and a violation of Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0055, subpart 3, item A. There was no information obtained that the AV was a danger to him/herself or others at the time of the incident and the AV sustained an injury due to the SP’s actions. Therefore, there was a preponderance of the evidence that there was a failure to supply the AV with reasonable and necessary care and a failure to protect the AV from conditions or actions that seriously endangered the AV’s physical heath when reasonably able to do so. In addition, there was a preponderance of the evidence that the SP’s conduct inflicted a physical injury on the AV. It was determined that neglect and physical abuse occurred (failure by a person responsible for a child's care to supply a child with necessary food, clothing, shelter, health, medical, or other care required for the child's physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so. Failure to protect a child from conditions or actions that seriously endanger the child's physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so. "Physical abuse" means any physical injury, mental injury, or threatened injury, inflicted by a person responsible for the child's care on a child other than by accidental means. "Threatened injury" means a statement, overt act, condition, or status that represents a substantial risk of physical or sexual abuse or mental injury). B. Responsibility pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.30, subdivision 4, paragraph (a), clauses (1) and (2): When determining whether the facility or individual is the responsible party, or whether both the facility and the individual are responsible for determined maltreatment in a facility, the investigating agency shall consider at least the following mitigating factors: (1) whether the actions of the facility or the individual caregivers were according to, and followed the terms of, an erroneous physician order, prescription, individual care plan, or directive; however, this is not a mitigating factor when the facility or caregiver was responsible for the issuance of the erroneous order, prescription, individual care plan, or directive or knew or should have known of the errors and took no reasonable measures to correct the defect before administering care; (2) comparative responsibility between the facility, other caregivers, and requirements placed upon an employee, including the facility’s compliance with related regulatory standards and the adequacy of facility policies and procedures, facility training, an individual’s participation in the training, the caregiver’s supervision, and facility staffing levels and the scope of the individual employee’s authority and discretion; and (3) whether the facility or individual followed professional standards in exercising professional judgment. The SP was responsible for the AV’s care and supervision at the time of the incident. The SP received training on the facility’s Behavior Guidance Policy and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. The SP was responsible for maltreatment of the AV. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.35, subdivision 6, paragraph (c) all investigative data maintained in this report will be kept by the Department of Children, Youth, and Families for at least ten years after the date of the final entry in the report. Action Taken by Facility: The facility completed an Internal Review and found their policies and procedures adequate, but not followed by the SP. The SP no longer worked at the facility. Action Taken by Department of Children, Youth, and Families, Office of Inspector General: The Department of Children, Youth, and Families informed the Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General, Background Studies Division that the SP was determined responsible for maltreatment. The determination that the SP is responsible for maltreatment is subject to appeal. On August 14, 2025, the facility was issued a Correction Order for the violations outlined in this report. In addition, it was determined that facility mandated reporters had knowledge of the alleged incident and did not report the incident as required. The license holder was ordered to forfeit a fine of $200 for failure to report maltreatment. The Order to Forfeit a Fine is subject to appeal. A letter from DCYF was sent to each applicable mandated reporter, regarding their failure to report the suspected maltreatment and potential consequences for future such failures. Certification: The information collection procedures followed in this investigation were pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.30, subdivision 6, paragraph (c). All individuals that are subjects of data in this investigation have the right to obtain private data on themselves which was collected, created, or maintained by the Department of Children, Youth, and Families.
|
